Novco v. Grainger

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: July 29, 1982
• Docket: 82-019
• Status: Published

Opinion

No. 82-19

I N THE SUPREME COURT 0 3 THE STATE O F MONTANA

NOVCO, a Corp.,

P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs-

HAROLD L. GRAINGER and HOWARD G. GRAINGEK,

D e f e n d a n t s and Respondents,

and

HAROLD L. GiiAINGER AND HOWARD G. GRAINGER,

Thir.d-Party E l a i n f i f f s and Bespondei3ks,

ED NOViS, i n d i v i d u a l l y , Third-Party Defendant and Respondent,

SUNSET CARBURETOR AND ELECTRIC, I N C . , a Montana C o r p . ,

Third-Party Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f Cascade, The HonorabLe John M. McCarvel, Judge p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel o f Record:

For A p p e l l a n t :

E. Eugene A t h e r t o n , K a l i s p e l i , Montana

Fos Respondents:

P a t r i c k M. S p r i n g e r , K a l s i p e l l , Montana J a r d i n e , S t e p h e n s o n , B l e w e t t & Weaver; Alexander B l e w e t t , 11, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana

S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : May 2 7 , 1982

Decided: & gg m1

Filed: JuL 2 9 1982 Mr. C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f the Court.

P l a i n t i f f Novco b r o u g h t a n a c t i o n a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t s

H a r o l d G r a i n g e r and Howard G r a i n g e r i n two c o u n t s : Count I

was a n a c t i o n on an open a c c o u n t f o r $37,557.58 f o r auto-

m o t i v e p a r t s a l l e g e d l y d e l i v e r e d by Novco t o S u n s e t C a r b u r e -

tor and Electric, Inc.; Count I1 was an action against

H a r o l d G r a i n g e r i n d i v i d u a l l y t o c o l l e c t on a bad c h e c k f o r

$30,000 drawn on t h e a c c o u n t of S u n s e t A u t o m o t i v e , I n c . , and

signed by Douglas Wolf and Harold Grainger, upon which

G r a i n g e r i s a l l e g e d t o be p e r s o n a l l y l i a b l e b e c a u s e h e knew

or s h o u l d h a v e known t h e r e were i n s u f f i c i e n t funds i n t h e

a c c o u n t t o t h e c r e d i t o f S u n s e t A u t o m o t i v e when h e d r e w and

d e l i v e r e d t h e check,

Defendants Grainger f a i l e d t o appear and a n s w e r and

their d e f a u l t was entered, T h i s d e f a u l t was s u b s e q u e n t l y

s e t a s i d e and t h e G r a i n g e r s f i l e d a n a n s w e r , a c o u n t e r c l a i m

and a t h i r d p a r t y c o m p l a i n t .

The s u b s t a n c e o f t h e t h i r d p a r t y c o m p l a i n t was t h a t

S u n s e t C a r b u r e t o r and E l e c t r i c , I n c . , a c o r p o r a t i o n , and n o t

t h e G r a i n g e r s p e r s o n a l l y , was t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t and

l i a b l e t o p l a i n t i f f Novco.

T h i r d p a r t y d e f e n d a n t S u n s e t C a r b u r e t o r and E l e c t r i c ,

Inc., moved f o r a c h a n g e o f v e n u e which t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

denied. This appeal followed.

The s o l e i s s u e on a p p e a l is t h e r i g h t o f third party d e f e n d a n t S u n s e t C a r b u r e t o r and E l e c t r i c , I n c . , t o a change

of v e n u e from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f Cascade County t o the

F l a t h e a d County D i s t r i c t C o u r t .

Plaintiff Novco and third party defendant Sunset

Carburetor and Electric, Inc., agree that the original defendants, Harold Grainger and Howard Grainger, waived

their right to challenge venue of the action by their

f a i l u r e t o s o move. Third p a r t y defendant Sunset Carbure-

t o r and E l e c t r i c , Inc., c o n t e n d s t h a t i t h a s an i n d e p e n d e n t

right, a s a t h i r d party defendant, t o a change of venue of

t h e o r i g i n a l a c t i o n b e c a u s e u n d e r R u l e 1 4 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., it

is entitled to assert against the plaintiff any defenses

t h a t d e f e n d a n t s G r a i n g e r might have a s s e r t e d .

W n o t e t h a t Montana s t a t u t e s r e l a t i n g t o v e n u e con- e

tain no specific provision regarding the rights of third

p a r t y d e f e n d a n t s t o o b j e c t t o v e n u e . R u l e 1 4 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P.,

d o e s p r o v i d e t h a t a t h i r d p a r t y d e f e n d a n t may a s s e r t a g a i n s t

the plaintiff d e f e n s e s which t h e t h i r d p a r t y p l a i n t i f f has

to the p l a i n t i f f ' s claim, but t h i s provision does not apply

t o m o t i o n s f o r a change of venue.

T h e r e a r e two b a s i c r e a s o n s why t h i r d p a r t y d e f e n d a n t

S u n s e t is n o t e n t i t l e d t o a change of venue. First, Sunset

C a r b u r e t o r is n o t a p r o p e r p a r t y t o t h e a c t i o n . The Montana

R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e do n o t p e r m i t a t h i r d p a r t y p l a i n -

tiff to implead a s a t h i r d p a r t y d e f e n d a n t a p a r t y who i s

n o t a p a r t y t o t h e o r i g i n a l p r o c e e d i n g and who i s o r may be

liable to the original plaintiff. R u l e 1 4 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P.,

o n l y p e r m i t s i m p l e a d e r o f a p a r t y who " i s o r may be l i a b l e "

to the third party p l a i n t i f f . S e c o n d l y , we h o l d i n a c c o r d

w i t h t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s t h a t t h e p r i v i l e g e of o b j e c t i n g t o

venue i n t h e main a c t i o n is a p e r s o n a l p r i v i l e g e b e l o n g i n g

t o t h e d e f e n d a n t i n t h e main a c t i o n a l o n e and n o t t o a t h i r d

party defendant. Brandt v, Olson (N.D. Iowa, E.D. 1959),

179 F.Supp. 363, It is g e n e r a l l y held t h a t a t h i r d party

proceeding growing out of the same subject matter as the main action and involving many of the same facts is

ancillary to the principal a c t i o n and i t s v e n u e r e s t s upon

t h a t of the principal action. Pelinski v. Goodyear T i r e &

Rubber Co. (N.D. Ill. 1980), 499 F.Supp. 1092; Seafood

Imports, Inc. v. A. J. Cunningham Pkg. Corp. (S.D. N.Y.

1975), 405 F.Supp. 5; Season-All Industries, Inc. v.

M e r c h a n t S h i p p e r s (W.D. Pa. 1 9 7 4 ) , 385 F.Supp. 517; Thompson

v. United A r t i s t s T h e a t r e C i r c u i t , I n c , (S.D. N.Y. 1 9 6 7 ) , 43

F.R.D. 339; Bonath v. Aetna Freight Lines, Inc, (W.D. Pa,

1963), 33 F.R.D. 260; Globig v. Greene & Gust Co. (E.D.

Wisc. 1 9 6 0 ) , 1 8 4 F.Supp. 530; Morrell v. united A i r Lines

T r a n s p o r t Corp. (S.D. N.Y. 1 9 3 9 ) , 29 F.Supp. 757. See a l s o ,

F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e and P r o c e d u r e , Wright & Miller, section

1445; 3 Moore's F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e , s e c t i o n 14.28 [ 2 ] ; s e c t i o n

9 , Annot., 1 0 0 ALR2d 6 9 3 , 7 0 8 , a n d c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n .

A£ £ i rmed,

. - - Chief J u s t i c e

W concur: e